Main Article Content
Vaccine literacy is positively associated with vaccination, so assessment of COVID-19 vaccine literacy is essentially needed. This study translated the COVID-19 Vaccine Literacy Scale, English version into Thai, and tested the psychometric properties of the Thai version (Thai COVID-19 VL Scale). A cross-sectional survey was conducted online. Data comprising 1,002 participants aged 18 years or older were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to identify factor structure and construct validity of the Thai COVID-19 VL Scale. Also, construct validity using the known-groups technique and internal consistency reliability were employed to test the scale.
According to the exploratory factor analysis, the results revealed that the 12-item scale consisting of two factors, Interactive/critical vaccine literacy and Functional vaccine literacy explained 58.1% of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the measurement model had relatively goodness of fit with the data. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.81 for the overall scale, 0.85 and 0.86 for both subscales, respectively. By using a known-groups technique, it was revealed that the participants who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had significantly higher vaccine literacy scores than those who intended and who were not sure/ not willing to get vaccination. This study indicated that the Thai COVID-19 VL Scale has adequate validity and reliability for assessing vaccine literacy among Thai people. It has the potential for nurses to identify people with low vaccine literacy so that a public health intervention can be targeted more specifically to enhance vaccine literacy and increase vaccine uptake in Thailand.
Copyright: The Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, Thailand Nursing & Midwifery Council has exclusive rights to publish, reproduce and distribute the manuscript and all contents therein.
2. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines for COVID-19. 2021. [cited 2021 June 27]. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations-process.html6:08 27/6/2564
3. Lazarus JV, Ratzan SC, Palayew A. et al. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. 2021;27:225–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9
4. Biasio LR. Vaccine hesitancy and health literacy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017;13(3):701-702. doi:10.1080/21645515.2016.1243633
5. HIMSS. Health care finance. 2021. [cited 2021 June 27]. Available from https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/health-literacy-seen-important-tool-increasingcovid-19-vaccine-uptake
6. Biasio LR, Giambi C, Fadda G, Lorini C, Bonaccorsi G, D’Ancona F. Validation of an Italian tool to assess vaccine literacy in adulthood vaccination: a pilot study. Ann Ig.2020;32(3):205-222. doi:10.7416/ai.2020.2344
7. Ishikawa H, Takeuchi T, Yano E. Measuring functional, communicative, and critical health literacy among diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(5):874–79. doi:10.2337/dc07-1932
8. Ishikawa H, Yano E. Patient health literacy and participation in the health-care process. Health Expect. 2008;11(2):113-122. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00497.x
9. Biasio LR, Bonaccorsi G, Lorini C, Pecorelli S. Assessing COVID-19 vaccine literacy: a preliminary online survey.Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021;17(5):1304-1312.doi:10.1080/21645515.2020.1829315
10. Biasio LR, Bonaccorsi G, Lorini C, Mazzini D, Pecorelli S. Italian adults’ likelihood of getting COVID-19 vaccine: a second online survey. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(3):268. doi:10.3390/vaccines9030268
11. CDC-MOPH. Corona virus disease. 2021. [cited 2021 July 1]. Available from https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/index.php
12. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease: covid-19--herd immunity. 2020. [cited 2021 June 27].Available from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus- 2019/media-resources/science-in-5/episode-1
13. Ratzan SC, Parker RM. Vaccine literacy helping everyone decide to accept vaccination. J Health Commun. 2020;25(10):750-752. doi:10.1080/10810730.2021.1875083
14. World Health Organization . Promoting health in the SDGs:report on the 9th Global conference for health promotion, Shanghai, China, 21–24 November 2016: all for health,health for all. 2016. [cited 2021 June 27]. Available from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259183.
15. World Health Organization. Regional Office for South- East Asia . Optimizing health literacy: improving health and reducing health inequities. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. 2015. [cited 2021 June 27]. Available from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/205594
16. Institute of Medicine. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004 https://doi.org/10.17226/10883
17. Nutbeam, D. Defining, measuring and improving health literacy. Health Evaluation and Promotion. 2015;42:450-55. doi:10.7143/jhep.42.450
18. Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:80.doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-80
19. Mackey LM, Doody C, Werner EL, Fullen B. Self-management skills in chronic disease management: what role does health literacy have? Med Decis Making. 2016;36(6):741-759.doi:10.1177/0272989X16638330
20. Crondahl K, Eklund Karlsson L. The nexus between health literacy and empowerment: a scoping review. SAGE Open.2016; 6. Doi:10.1177/2158244016646410
21. Levy H, Janke A. Health literacy and access to care. J Health Commun. 2016;21 Suppl 1(Suppl):43-50. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1131776
22. Jayasinghe UW, Harris MF, Parker SM, et al. The impact of health literacy and life style risk factors on health-related quality of life of Australian patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes.2016;14:68. doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0471-1
23. Eichler K, Wieser S, Brügger U. The costs of limited health literacy: a systematic review. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(5):313-324. doi:10.1007/s00038-009-0058-2
24. Fabbri M, Murad MH, Wennberg AM, et al. Health literacy and outcomes among patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Heart Fail. 2020;8(6):451-460. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2019.11.007
25. MacDonald NE; SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161-4164. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036
26. Castro-Sánchez E, Chang PWS, Vila-Candel R, Escobedo AA, Holmes AH. Health literacy and infectious diseases:why does it matter?. Int J Infect Dis. 2016;43:103-110.doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2015.12.019
27. Lorini C, Santomauro F, Donzellini M, et al. Health literacy and vaccination: a systematic review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(2):478-488. doi:10.1080/21645515.2017.1392423
28. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.) New York:McGraw-Hill; 1978.
29. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(3):259–67. doi:10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
30. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis.Psychology press;1992.
31. Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK. Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48(2):175-186.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x
32. Revelle, W. Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. 2017. [cited 2021 June 27]. Available from https://personality-project.org/r/psych-manual.pdf
33. Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5-12 (BETA). J Stat Softw. 2012, 48,1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/ v048i02.
34. Hattie J, Cooksey RW. Procedures for assessing the validities of tests using the “known-groups” method. Appl Psychol Meas.1984;8(3):295-305. doi:10.1177/014662 168400800306
35. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed England: Pearson; 2014.
36. Kyriazos T. Applied Psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychol. 2018;09:2207-2230. doi:10.4236/psych.2018.98126
37. Strauss ME, Smith GT. Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2009;5:1-25. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639
38. Matsunaga M. How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s,don’ts, and how to’s. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3:97–110.doi:10.21500/20112084.854
39. Soeken KL. Validity of measures. In Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER, eds. Measurement in nursing and health research. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2005: 154-189.
40. Briggs SR, Cheek JM. The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. J Pers 1986;54:106–48. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
41. García C, Gómez RS, García CB. Choice of the ridge factor from the correlation matrix determinant. J Stat Comput Sim. 2019;89(2):211-231. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2018.1543423
42. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3518.104.22.1689
43. Ali SH, Foreman J, Capasso A, Jones AM, Tozan Y, DiClemente RJ. Social media as a recruitment platform for a nationwide online survey of COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, and practices in the United States: methodology and feasibility analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):116. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01011-0